There isn’t much concrete information, but my guess is that OS/ecosystem is exactly what this project is, and that they are not talking about physical hardware. Specially considering that they are putting the emphasis on free software (not hardware) and they are involving a software developer. Making a phone’s hardware free would be an entirely different beast.

In the afternoon, FSF executive director Zoë Kooyman announced an exciting new project: Librephone.

Librephone is a new initiative by the FSF to bring full computing freedom to mobile computing environments. The LibrePhone Project is a partnership with Rob Savoye, a developer who has worked on free software (including the GNU toolchain) since the 1980s. “Since mobile phone computing is now so ubiquitous, we’re very excited about LibrePhone and think it has the potential to bring software freedom to many more users all over the world.”

From the official FSF post about the event.

I didn’t downvote you, but it’s unclear what you meant by stating that.

Depending on how one interprets it, it can be seen as a justification for using “fascist” (since there isn’t a more accurate word) or simply a way to emphasize that the term is inaccurate and shouldn’t be used.

So I’m not surprised if you get up/down votes from both sides in either direction, specially in a polarizing discussion. Not because of what you said being wrong/right, but because of what they might read between lines.

In theory, it can. One possible reason with Btrfs might be that you are only mounting a subvolume even though there might be other files in the same filesystem (such as snapshots/copies of the subvolume for backup) but that are not being mounted.

Also some tools like gparted do not handle btrfs disk usage very well and will display it as if the whole partition is 100% full.

What’s your filesystem?

If you are using something like btrfs, for example, the usage reports can be misleading, and getting the exact size can be complicated… I’d recommend using more fs-specific tools, such as btdu.

I see, thanks for the overview.

If NixOS really does need a community in order for things to work at all, and it cannot be independent from it, then it looks like the moderation team asking for independence is a hard ask. It’ll require restructuring it.

However, with this context it looks to me that what they are asking is not really independence for the moderation team, but independence from Anduril… which are 2 completely different things. The message is misleading.

I get that big projects are not the same, but in my experience there’s always a hierarchy, not a collection of independent bodies (except for fan-made communities that are clearly “unofficial”, those are independent, sure). It’s not unheard of for maintainers at the top of the hierarchy to influence other parts of the organization, like moderation. In fact most open source projects are like that, led by a group of “benevolent dictators”.

For full independence, why not simply detach development from community?

You can even have multiple independent communities with multiple independent moderation teams all about the same software.

As a developer I’ve never needed to engage a particular community on a personal level in order to make a PR to a project… if the technical maintainers want to accept the change, they will, if they won’t then that’s fine, they probably have their reasons. It’s ok to communicate with communities to get feedback, but I’m not making contributions for the social approval, I’m making them when I believe they are useful, and most of the times I write them because I want to have that change myself. If it’s rejected and enough other people are interested in the change, it can be forked. That doesn’t mean I hate the maintainers or that I don’t want the original to exist or anything, it’s not personal.

But well, I understand that some communities wanna make software and they intertwine development and social relationships. However, if you do this then I don’t see how can independence be a thing. Either separate them and don’t intermix them or mix them and don’t expect them to be separate.

Yes, the matter of fact is that the reason why that choice was taken away is because everyone except MS was forbidden from “having” that engine. It might have still been alive today in some form had it not been an exclusive MS-owned thing.

Yes, I understand that. But in my view, Microsoft is the one that might have had “a non Google-reliant engine” (if it’s true that they didn’t rely on Google code).

They just let us use it under their conditions, for the limited time they decided to make it available to us… but it was never “ours”. We were just contractually allowed to use it, but we didn’t really “have” it.

Personally, I think if the engine was closed source, then we didn’t in fact “had that”. Maybe Microsoft had it, not us.

What makes things like chromium, firefox and webkit actual ecosystems is that they at least have an open source basis. Edge isn’t an ecosystem, it’s a black box. We don’t even know whether it’s true or not that it was its own thing or just they sneakily used bits and pieces of chromium from the start anyway.

User Agent checks is the easiest thing to overcome. Had edge’s engine been open source we would have had spins of it resolving the issue within hours. There are many examples of “random developers” succeeding where big companies tied by business strategies (I bet they had business reasons to keep a distinctive user agent) didn’t, to the point that the web runs on servers using FOSS software.

I just wanna say that we have Webkit. After Google moved over to Blink Webkit has not stopped development… and it even has multiple big names behind it (like Apple, but also Valve partnered with WebkitGtk maintainers, and many devices like Amazon’s Kindle are heavily invested on it) so it’s not gonna go away anytime soon. Specially with Safari being the second most used browser on the web, right after chrome and several times more users than Firefox.

On Linux we have some browsers making use of Webkit (like Epiphany, Gnome’s default browser) that are thus independent from Google or even Mozilla. I’m not sure if there’s any browser like that for Windows though.

There’s also Netsurf, they also have their own rendering libraries, but development for it is super slow, I’ve been following them for a couple decades and they still haven’t got a stable javascript engine, so it only works for the most basic of websites. The plus side is that it’s very light on resources, though.

Yeah, that’s why I’m saying that the current solution does not work. It’s why I was proposing a new standard that is enforced by law and that does not depend on subjective definitions of what’s “essential” so anyone who does only want to allow certain purposes can opt in/out of certain cookies without the hassle.

If the comment really does refer to “form factor” and not “OS”, then the comment is irrelevant.

You can also run Android on a desktop form factor, the app would be then technically able to run on “desktop”. The OP’s post clearly refers to the OS, it does not matter what the form factor is, you can even run Linux on the phone (eg. PureOS).

Just note that @RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone wasn’t the one who opened the Thread, that’s why they said they didn’t ask the question (I get the feeling there might have been some confusion here :P ).

Still, very informative comment.

@PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world said “reject all”, not “reject optional cookies” or “allow essential”. If the website offers a “reject all” button (which many do, even if that’s not mandated by the law), it actually does reject even the essential cookies. In my experience, the times I’ve chosen to press such button it always result on the banner showing again if you refresh the page.

And “Could be seen as” is subjective too. They could argue that having the banner, even if inconvenient, does not really break the website. They can also easily argue that since the point of the law was to get them to request consent then they are actually being even safer in terms of compliance by asking more.

Also, I still would rather have the possibility of no banners, not even the first time I open the page. The configuration from the browser following the standard could set a default for all websites and potentially avoid the popup to begin with. Then the responsibility would be with the browser, not the website.

That doesn’t work, because rejecting all cookies means it’s impossible for the page to remember whether you skipped the banner… so the result is that the banner will always show.

The real solution would be to have this be a browser / HTML standard. Similar to other permissions managed by the browser (like permission to get camera/mic, permission to send notifications, etc)… then each browser can have a way to respond to these requests for permission that we can more fully control/customize… with a UI owned by the browser that is consistent across websites and with settings that can be remembered browser-side (so the request can be automatically denied if that’s what you want).

“Essential” is still very vague. All purposes should be categorized. If used for session/identity, then it should be categorized as “session/identity”, there should not be a category defined as “essential”.

You can also make a karaoke page that does not work without access to the microphone, but still the browser has a dedicated permission request for this, it does not get mixed up into a bucket of generic “essential” permissions only because that page doesn’t work without using the microphone.

There should be a whole HTML standard similar to the Notification.requestPermission() (which requests permission to send browser notifications), but with a granular set of permissions for storage of data for different purposes.

And this should be a browser standard, not a custom popup in the logic of the website itself that will be styled differently on each page, allowing all sort of anti-patterns. I should be able to control, from the browser, what the defaults should be for each individual category of data, without having to click through every single website I visit individually. The UI to request for consent should be controlled by the browser, not by the page.

I mean, in the Linux terminal you can literally do anything a computer can do. You can play with your PC speaker with beep, dim your screen with brightnessctl, etc. Why would you assume there wasn’t a command for suspending? :P

You can also use rtcwake and program the PC to come back from suspension automatically at a certain time… I used to set up my small laptop with music to wake up with it as a morning alarm.

On the upside, the end user needs to use up less data for the same content. This is particularly interesting under 4G/5G and restrictive data plans, or when accessing places / servers with weak connection. It helps avoid having to wait for the “buffering” of the video content mid-playback.

But yes, I agree each iteration has diminishing returns, with a higher bump in requirements. I feel that’s a pattern we see often.

It’s not like improper use of “steal” is unheard of, I see all the time people use “I’m gonna steal that” and similar even when it applies to things openly given for free. And considering that it’s quite clear that the MIT allows others to take without sharing back (it’s the main difference with GPL) I’m quite sure the commenter was aware that it wasn’t really theft, yet chose that word probably with the intention to insult the practice, rather than as a fair descriptor.

So yes, you’re right, it isn’t theft… but I don’t think that was the point of the comment.